The Invincibles or Manchester City?
There`s been a lot of talk over the last few days of how the current Manchester City side is better than the 2004 title winning Invincibles of Arsenal.
The majority of this debate has been fuelled by Talk-Sports "proof" of how City are better down to a simple comparison of players from the respective teams, paired up at their choosing and giving 1 point for every player TS deemed "better".
In this comparison, City emerged victorious after the final vote tipped the scales in City`s favour. The winning comparison? Sergio Aguero is better than Dennis Bergkamp apparently.
That was followed up with Yaya Toure, brother of Invincible, Kolo, claiming on Facebook that City were going to better.
Now, this isn`t an article to start a flame war, no, just one to ask opinions.
There`s no denying that this City team is a good one (let`s leave the debate of how the team came together for another day/article), they appear to be able to score at will, and are playing some pretty nice stuff too. However in my humble opinion the two can not be compared.
City are yet to hit a rough patch, never mind to make it all it all the way to next May without losing. Our team went unbeaten and won the league, it`s impossible, nay ridiculous, to claim a team in November, can be better than a team in May.
Have these people never watched football? Things can come crashing down around their ears very quickly …. And that`s something we`ve got some experience in.